Recently, a dude that likes to blog about his obsession with underaged kids has made the internet news circuit.

He was doing his mesed-up thing in Seattle. And now he has moved on to L.A..

If the news is correct, he never says anything dirty about his obsession. He does supposedly post non-sexual pics.

Question: Does this guy take his First Amendment right too far?

First off, lets look at the First Amendment in the context that it was written in.

Quote:

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Separation of church and state. If congress began making law's respecting an establishment of religion, what would these laws be? Could they not say within a law written that this is the only religion and that it must be followed? Would they not then be the enforcers of the religious doctrine's, doctrines that seem to be in opposition to the advancement of humankind?

Quote:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

As we see, this ties in nicely to above. It is our individual choice whether we choose to worship, where we choose to worship, and what we choose to worship. (Unless it is harmful to the residence of the state we would have to assume. We could not have worshipers who sacrifice children to their gods now could we?)

We have seen this broken with Bushes Faith Based Initiatives program.

Quote:

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

We have to wonder about this quote. What did the founders mean? Is it not possible that this clause was put in place with the soul purpose of protecting the people from the oppression of the government, allowing us to voice our grievances without fear of punishment, for the press to point out any misdeed's without fear of punishment? Is this not what the entire document is about, limiting the powers of the government and protecting our rights from government oppression?

Should it not seem odd to us that our founders were advocating that it is our right to spout out hatful and hurtful speech, the spreading of beliefs that are in exact opposition to the phrase (All men are created equal)? Is it not reasonable to assume that we may have taken what was meant here out of context and incorporated it into our own lives that we may justify hateful speech and say it is our right to do so?

Is it also not reasonable to assume that as with other just laws, this has become twisted to the point that it no longer resembles that for which it was intended, thus, rather that growing and advancing as a people, we are able to use this twisted version of the law to not only prevent but also attempt to regress any advancement that we have made?

Is this not how the racists attempt use this law?

The way that this law is viewed now is to the determent of an advancing society. We should not be free to advance hate nor harm, we should however be free to advance peace and understanding amongst ONE ANOTHER, somehow allowing those to see exactly why this dogma of hate and harm are wrong.

This is something that we must do. The government can do nothing about it. Outlawing THOUGHT will not change the thoughts, they will still remain there growing in hate and resentment. It is only through understanding that these thoughts will change. Until we are willing to come together in an attempt at understanding, nothing will change.

Quote:

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And once again, a protection put into place to allow us to address the government without fear of punishment.

Is it not safe to assume that these laws were ONLY meant to address our government? Is this not what the Constitution in and of itself point out to time and time again? A restriction of government powers and an enforcement of the rights of the people to address this government without fear of retribution?

All of these are only assumptions on my part, but are they not reasonable assumptions?

With the way the First Amendment is understood NOW, this man is not taking the law too far. He is using it in the exact same way that others have misused this law to achieve the advancement of their degradation of society, and it has been said to be lawful in the courts in the context which it is being used.

The ONLY thing that the First Amendment should be there for is to protect us from the government. Anything else is an issue that we must find a way to address amongst one another. More law's of suppression will accomplish nothing.

I cannot FORCE you to not hate me. I cannot FORCE you by saying it against the law and you will be punished if you do not comply. This will only increase the resentment.
I therefor must somehow SHOW you that there is no reason for your hate. I must SHOW you why it is that your hate is wrong.

Of course, in today's society this is not the way it is, thus continues our self destruction.

Yes. These are only assumptions on my part. To my mind, and at this point they appear to be reasonable. If you can SHOW me otherwise, please do. My mind is open.

Yes. This man is abusing the law though he is using it within the context that is now understood. It is time that this law is clearly defined do you think?

_________________CrimsonEagleThe war to end all wars can only be fought on the front-lines of the mind.

The greatest deception they have perpetrated is that we need them. Our greatest mistake is that we believe them.

There used to be a poster here named jobot. Her signature was one that I remember vividly: "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Does the fellow take his FA rights too far? Maybe, but if he's not broken any law, who is to judge? When we start censoring people because their actions are repulsive to us, and because they're skating so close to that tiny boundary between lawful and unlawful, but they're still on the lawful side, pretty soon we'll be taking more and more of that right away because somebody is always going to be offended by the actions of others.

While this fellow is extremely repulsive, abhorrant, and someone whose balls we'd all just love to crush to smithereens, Fox News is mostly propaganda, although for once, I will concded that their affiliate might be telling the truth. If he's a potential pedophile, he definitely deserves watching by a Community Watch group. Hmmm...is there such an organization as Would-Be Pedophiles Anonymous? I'm not trying to be funny...it seems to me that this fellow would be a prime candidate for some hard-core interventions IF he has the potential to be extremely dangerous...but then, how many of us have ever really wanted to murder someone, but never acted on it? Does the potential for us to be murderers make us guilty of murder?

Has Fox reported anything about the stories in this link about pedophiles that you know of, CZ?

Does the fellow take his FA rights too far? Maybe, but if he's not broken any law, who is to judge? When we start censoring people because their actions are repulsive to us, and because they're skating so close to that tiny boundary between lawful and unlawful, but they're still on the lawful side, pretty soon we'll be taking more and more of that right away because somebody is always going to be offended by the actions of others.

If they don't like it, they don't have to look at it. If they don't want to watch a certain show on say CH-5, they switch to another channel. It is easier now with remotes. Same with radio - turn the dial. If people don't like it, stay away.

"[Do not] suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty [to publish] by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." --John Adams

SI--

_________________You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced; and you will know you have spoken both truly and well when you are visited by the thought police.

Sometimes it feels so PC to chalk up this sort of crap on the internet as a First Amendment right. But I'd have to side with the FA right because he is just talking bs at this point.

The way I came about this story was through a Sunday morning KGO talkshow.

Brian Copelamd brought up the subject. And Bernie Ward, a very cool liberal, defended the dude's FA right. It was a very captivating 15-20 minute argument.

I found the articles that showed that the dude doesn't come that close to advocating illegal contact with kids. He just talks about being near them. Although the cuddling thing might cause an involuntary right cross from me.

And there is so much crap that does get counted as protected under free speech, as Catherine points out.